Resurrection Skepticism is Apparently a Futile Endeavor?

[POI]

Okay, so we reject the resurrection because it would be impossible, and we reject the idea that the resurrection story was made up because that would be impossible. So then, any thinking person would attempt to move on to another scenario which may be possible and think through what all that would have involved. My friend, you do not even have to do the work here, because the scholars have done the work for you, and there is no known scenario which would be possible. The thing is, you have to know this. Because you see, if any of the scholars had come up with this neat and tidy explanation of the facts we can know which would even be possible, we would all be aware of this scenario. It does not exist, and this does not matter to you because you hold out hope, against all hope that there must and has to be a scenario out there that may be possible. This is exactly what you are doing because you have not come up with any scenario which would be a possibility, and yet you have somehow convinced yourself that there must and has to be another explanation. There is no known explanation of the facts we can know which would not include the extreme extraordinary, which means you have to exchange one extraordinary tale for another, or you have to hope against all hope there is an unknown explanation out there.

For Debate:

1) Apparently, it is impossible for 'the resurrection' storyline to have been made up?

2) Have all the skeptical positions been thoroughly debunked? And even if so, does this then logically render the claim of "the resurrection" a completely valid one - (maybe by mere process of elimination)?

3) What 'facts' do we really have surrounding this Jesus character, and how exactly do we know this?

4) Are any given naturalistic explanations, proposed by skeptics throughout history, anywhere near as 'extraordinary' of a claim as instead concluding Jesus really rose from his grave?

5) And for "the resurrection" skeptics and doubters, care to share your position(s) which has seemingly been thoroughly debunked by scholarship?

[POI]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #36]

Blah blah blah blah....

Post 17. Post 19. Post 24. Post 35.

My friend, you promised that it would go badly for me

It already has. You are the only one not seeing it.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #41]

We will see as we continue on this site.

[POI]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #42]

This would only be continuing to beat a very dead horse.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #43]


NO! Because now I am going to force you to concede on the arguments you regurgitate.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #43]


NO! Because now I am going to force you to concede on the arguments you regurgitate.

Again, here is my argument(s): Post 17. Post 19. Post 24. Post 35. Post 39.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #45]

Rinse, and repeat!

[POI]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #46]

Post 45.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #47]

Rinse and repeat!

[bluegreenearth]

What you got in my earlier reply, instead, was a critique of your exaggerated description of his videos.

Yes, your opinion was already noted. So, are you able to refute Paulogia's argument or not?

While we continue to wait for a response from historia, does anyone else claim to have a logical justification for dismissing the naturalistic "Minimal Witnesses" hypothesis?

[historia]

So, are you able to refute Paulogia's argument or not?

That depends on what you think the goal of his argument is. Is it: (a) simply to articulate a naturalistic hypothesis, or (b) to demonstrate that his hypothesis best explains the available historical evidence.

At least in the initial video -- also reflected in this article -- it seems that Ens' goal is the former rather than the latter. He frames his argument as a response to the conservative evangelical scholar Gary Habermas, who has criticized skeptics for taking a "shotgun" approach to explaining the evidence, rather than sticking to a single hypothesis. Ens also notes a proper defense of this "minimal witnesses" argument would require a book-length treatment -- probably correct.

So, if Ens' goal is simply to articulate a naturalistic hypothesis, then surely he has achieved that. Likewise, if I asked a conspiracy theorist to give me a hypothesis to explain, say, the moon landing, it would not be hard for him to do so. Historical events are always open to multiple different hypotheses -- that's the nature of history -- and simply articulating a hypothesis is a very low bar to clear.

If, on the other hand, you think the goal was to demonstrate that this hypothesis best explains the available evidence, then I'm afraid Ens has not even attempted to do so. Point #7, for example, is offered up with no supporting evidence or scholarship whatsoever. To appropriate an old atheist yarn: What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without argument.